Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Using the Law Unlawfully

Have you ever sought to defend a cause only to end up
proving something you didn’t mean to—like attempting to prove the existence of
God only to find yourself backed into a corner? It’s a humbling, and evening a
frightening, experience. Since I don’t think quickly on my feet, I have argued
myself into a corner on more than one occasion.

One such occasion (or a period of time, rather) involved the
realization that I had misinterpreted more than half the Bible. Up until that
point, I was convinced that the prominent use of Scriptural commands—“Choose
this day,” “If you are willing to obey,” etc.—proved that those commands could
be obeyed. But as last week’s post pointed out, such a conclusion is faulty.

The conclusion is more than just faulty, though. It undermines
the very faith on which we stand. You see, when we use the law to prove
mankind’s ability, it ends up proving much more than we bargain for. It proves
not just that we have some ability to
follow after God; it proves that man can do all
that God requires, without any aid from God.

We need to remember that God requires that we obey all of His law, not just a part of it. “You
shall therefore keep all My statutes and all My judgments, and perform them”
(Lev. 20:22); “keep all His statutes…all the days of your life” (Deut. 6:2);
“walk always in His ways” (Deut. 19:9). That is the condition on which God’s
promises rest: full and complete obedience.

Consider what Christ described as the greatest commandment
of all: “You shall love the LORD your God with all
your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind [Deut. 6:5]” (Matt.
22:37). This command is the sum of how we are to relate to God. The
command exists, so does that mean it is within man’s power to love God totally
and completely, without God working in his heart at all?

The answer should be obvious. Just take a look at Matthew 5,
where Christ expounds on several Old Testament laws, and evaluate how you have
measured up to that standard in the
last few weeks—let alone, in the last several years. Obedience that truly gives
God His due is just as far from our grasp as the stars in the heavens.

Saving faith entails an acknowledgement that our
obligation to the law exceeds our ability. We cannot obey it—not partially, not
completely, not even to save our own lives. We are like a man who files for
bankruptcy, declaring that he cannot pay off what he owes. Because his
obligation exceeds his ability, he pleads for mercy in the form of the
elimination of his debts.

But maybe you only want to prove that man can love God to a
certain extent, to at least make a strong effort to pursue God. Even if that were
so, where does that leave us? James says, “whoever
shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all”
(Jas. 2:10). When it comes to being justified in God’s sight, partial obedience
isn’t any better than no obedience.

If God’s commands are within our grasp, if mankind is able to
obey and love God of his own accord, then there is no need for grace. There is
no need for Christ. We may argue to the contrary, but that is the logical
conclusion of using the law to prove mankind’s ability.

Either we have the power to fulfill the entire law or we
cannot fulfill any of it. There is no middle ground. And Scripture tells us
that Christ came to call not the righteous (i.e., law keepers), but sinners
(i.e., law breakers) to Himself (Luke 5:32). Righteous, God-fearing, law-abiding
people don’t need to repent; only sinners do.

If we fail to grasp that the law exists to show us our
inability, we will end up using the law illegally. That’s right; we will take a
good thing—the law of God—and use it contrary to God’s purposes. That is what
Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:8-9: “But we know that the law is good if one uses it
lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but
for the lawless.” The law was made not to prove our righteousness but our
unrighteousness. It was never made for those with the power to keep it—only for
those who cannot. And those who find themselves powerless are perfectly
situated to receive the amazingly good news of the gospel.

Well, I've been mostly offline for the last few weeks, but I've spent the last couple of hours getting sucked back into the online vortex. :-P

My journey has led me to your blog where I have read a few of your posts. You have been writing about a topic that is of great interest to me - how the law and grace work.

I have enjoyed reading your thoughts, but on this post I thought I'd share a thought (or two) of my own.

It seems often we put law and grace (or gospel) against each other as if they are two totally separate things. But I see law and grace as one.

Grace exists within the very words of the law. Our Savior said the first five books of the Bible, often referred to as the "law" were all about Him. He said Moses wrote of Him. Yes, Moses detailed God's standard of holiness for His set-apart children, but he also wrote of God's mercy and kindness in providing atoning blood to make a way back to Him when they inevitably fell short.

So, here's a question: Does the law really demand perfection or does it demand repentance when we fall short?

God Himself says the law is not too hard. After having Moses recap the law for the children of Israel before heading into the promised land He says:

"For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off." (Deut 30:11)

On another note, you mentioned that Christ came not for the righteous. You then defined the righteous as law-keepers. I think its important to point out that the Pharisees, whom He most often chastised were not law-keepers. To the contrary, they were law-breakers, substituting their own law for God's.

"You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!" (Mark 7:8-9)

While I wholeheartedly agree that law-keeping cannot save us, I do see clearly in scripture that our obedience to the law demonstrates our love for our God and Savior. Lovers of God who obeyed the law because of their love for Him were never chastised or corrected. Scripture commends humble law-keepers like Zechariah and Elizabeth:

And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. (Luke 1:6)

How are we to process this statement if the law was an impossible standard? The only way it makes sense to me is that they believed God and responded in faith to His directions for walking in the Way, which when rightly understood, always included the covering of a spotless lamb.

Anyway, these are really just rambling thoughts. I hope you don't mind me sharing them with you. I'm just still on the journey of understanding the work and will of my God and Savior and I love coming alongside other believers and comparing notes. ;-)

Erika, you are welcome to post your thoughts on this blog whenever you want! I would have responded sooner, but I somehow overlooked that you had commented.

I agree that the law and gospel are not at odds. They complement each other beautifully. What I'm trying to caution against is a misapplication of the law, as if it--and not the gospel--is our source of hope.

Does the law really demand perfection or does it demand repentance when we fall short? I would say both. The standard of God is perfection: "be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, 'Be holy, for I am holy'" (1 Pet. 1:16). When we fall short--and all of us do--we are to repent.

I have a hard time interpreting Deuteronomy 30:11 as saying that God's law is easy to keep. If we say God's holiness is easy to achieve, we are undercutting the very gospel we say we believe in.

I think I'm with Martin Luther, who states in The Bondage of the Will that Deuteronomy 30:11-14 is a declaration of how the law has effectively come to Israel: it is "not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off" (v. 11, NKJV). Indeed, it isn't "in heaven" (v. 12) or "beyond the sea" (v. 13). Rather, it is near them (v. 14). The commandments have been faithfully set before them so plainly and clearly that they need not look elsehwere.

To quote Luther, "What a fool was Christ, Who shed His blood to purchase for us the Spirit, Whom we do not need, in order that we might be made able to keep the commandments with ease, when we are so already by nature! . . . . Let [us] now say that free will has such power that it not only wills good, but keeps the greatest commandments, yes, all the commandments, with ease!"

Now, having said that, I don't think you and I disagree as much as it may appear. My last post in the law/gospel series will go live tomorrow, and I think it brings some much needed clarifications. (Of course, you are free to disagree if you think otherwise.)

Most Popular Posts

The first assault against Jennifer
Lawrence was heavily discussed in the news and on social media. The second has received
comparatively little fanfare. The first incident resulted in an FBI
investigation, subsequent prosecution, and an upcoming sentencing. The legal ramifications of the second incident are practically
nonexistent. The overall response to the first was outrage. The response to the
second was indifference.

What were these two incidents? The
first, as you may have guessed, was the 2014 iCloud hack in which private/nude photos of several female celebrities, including
Lawrence, were stolen and published online. The second incident involved the
filming of Jennifer Lawrence’s first sex scene (for the sci-fi movie Passengers). Let me set the stage by
sharing three similarities between the photo hack and the sex scene.
First, in the aftermath of the photo hack, Lawrence experienced anxiety. “I was
just so afraid,” she later said. “I didn’t know how this would affect my caree…

Several years ago, Kate Beckinsale
was conned into signing a movie contract that required nudity—something she
didn’t want to do. With her acting career in jeopardy, she found herself
browbeaten by the director. “I was really disturbed and I was sobbing and
begging,” she said.
At long last, she gave in to intimidation and performed the nude scene, which
made her feel
“violated and horrible.” Afterwards, she secretly urinated in
the director’s thermos in revenge.

In more recent history, one
actress from the HBO show Game of Thrones mustered up the courage to refuse doing any more nude
scenes. She is reported as saying
that she wants to be known for her acting, not for her body parts. (It’s a
sorry state of affairs that requires such a statement to be made in the first
place.) When the show started, she didn’t have nearly enough clout to buck the
system. A season of the show’s overwhelming popularity may have been what put
her in a better position to bargain with the producers. Would yo…

If you’re a fan of the 2014 film God’s Not Dead, and if you’re excited
about its upcoming sequel, you and I probably have several things in common. We
likely agree that historic Christianity is becoming less and acceptable in the
public sphere. We likely agree that many of our nation’s college campuses are
becoming more and more hostile to individuals who adhere to any form of
absolutes. We also likely agree that there is an increasing need for believers
of all types—students, teachers, pastors, filmmakers, etc.—to engage with our world
in an effective and countercultural way. It’s actually because of these
shared beliefs that I’m majorly concerned with the popularity of God’s Not Dead (and other movies like
it). And it’s because of these shared beliefs that I want to explain my concerns to you. I’ll put aside most of the
artistic issues I have with the film. (For that, I’ll direct you to my cyber
friends Steven D. Greydanus and Peter T. Chattaway). My main focus here will be on the mov…

* CONTENT ADVISORY: This topic requires a certain level of
frankness that may be inappropriate for some readers. While I have taken great
pains to avoid titillation, reader discretion is still advised. * Last week, we looked at the four main ways in which motion picture sex scenes and pornography are different.
Now I want to show how these factors actually prove to condemn Hollywood’s
methods rather than excuse them. Argument #1: There is often a difference in production
values. Motion pictures are a form of art, whereas porn is unabashed
titillation. Hollywood’s mash-up of blatant
sexuality (nudity and sex scenes) and aesthetics only serves to make its
displays of sex more alluring to the viewer. As supposed works of art,
Hollywood films are concerned with giving their audiences pleasure through
beauty. That’s what aesthetics are all about. What is ultimately more alluring:
a sex scene with bad lighting, poor audio quality, and shoddy production work,
or a sex scene with good composition…

So there I was, surrounded by church members, my pants wet,
my blood boiling. This wasn’t what I needed—at least, that’s what I told
myself.

The morning had started innocently enough. Shannon and I
arrived at our church building later than normal. Because of the pouring rain
and the packed parking lot, I said I would drop Shannon off at the front and then
go park and bring our Bibles and notebooks in. (After all, with an umbrella and
a raincoat at my disposal, my trek across the parking lot wouldn’t be too bad.)
Shannon didn’t want me lugging the books in the rain, so she
grabbed them before heading into the building. I then parked near the back of
the lot and reached for the umbrella.
It wasn’t there. Not in the back seat…not in the front seat.
Not anywhere. Shannon must have taken it inside with her.
Okay. No big deal. I still had my raincoat, and thanks to my
memory of a once-watched YouTube video, I had learned the trick to staying relatively
dry while traveling in the rain: wal…

Yes, I am
still on a Greatest Showman kick. Cut
me some slack, though. My wife and I only saw it for the first time just under
three weeks ago. The soundtrack still plays almost daily in our home, providing
near endless opportunities for our toddlers to daintily prance and spin as they
sing along with “The Circus Man” (as they gleefully call him). Besides, for
someone who’s as unhip as myself, it makes sense that I would be taken in by
such an uncool (according to critics), and yet wildly popular (according to general audiences), movie.

So, what
is my point in writing another post about this particular film? To gush like a
fanboy who has staked a personal claim to gold-encrusted, front-row seats on
the Greatest Showman bandwagon? Not exactly.
(That’s just a happy side effect.) The point of this blog post is to…well,
point out a unique aspect of the song “A Million Dreams.” After listening to this
song a bajillion times (give or take a few), I’ve noticed something
extraordinary about i…

I recently read through Genesis 15, where God reassures Abram, who is currently childless, that he will have numerous descendants (which God had initially promised in Genesis 12:1-3). Abram’s response leads to something amazing: “And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6).

Commenting on this verse, Martin Luther says, “Righteousness is nothing else than believing God when He makes a promise.” The anti-intuitive nature of this statement struck me forcefully. You see, I am unconsciously inclined to think that my striving hard to do well is the kind of righteousness that pleases God. When I obey a particular law, do a good deed, or reject a temptation, then I have earned at least a small degree of God’s favor. But that is not how it works.

God definitely blesses our faith-inspired efforts, but such efforts are…well, based on faith—that is, confidence in God’s promise to pardon and accept me through Christ’s atoning work. If I attempt to som…

Last week, we looked at
Hollywood’s underground culture of sexual
abuse: how actors are routinely coerced into violating their consciences by
performing nude scenes and/or sex acts on screen. While audiences have grown
comfortable with watching such scenes, actors are often uncomfortable (or
worse) with filming them.

Isn’t it true, though, that some actors
willingly undress for the camera? The simple answer is, of course, yes. But
it’s an answer that requires at least two clarifications. And since women are
the majority of the victims in these circumstances, we’ll focus on women for
the rest of the article. First, it’s not as easy as you
might think to discern the difference between willing and unwilling
performances. Take just one example (or, rather, an example in several parts)
from recent history, all involving a “willing participant.” Actress Margot Robbie recounts
how her audition went for the movie The
Wolf of Wall Street. She showed up for the audition in her usual
look: jeans …

Your argument robs adult women of
agency because it says outright that they
are not consenting and implies they
cannot consent. It infantilizes adult women and asserts that they can only
be protected by men with a white knight impulse. We’re getting into an area
where women are regarded as little more than sheep, being led by whatever crook
is nearest.
As regular visitors know, over the past few years I have
focused much of my blog’s attention on how the entertainment industry places
pressure on actors to perform nude and/or sex scenes for audiences. It’s a
problem that is at once both tacitly acknowledged and blithely ignored. I have
argued further that those who suffer most under this burden are actresses.
With my emphasis on women, some readers have responded with
major concerns. I am both thankful for and alarmed by this feedback, because
the quoted critique above is not what I have meant to communicate. Not at all. I
offered a …

Let me tell you about a film that’s garnered a lot of
publicity. The story revolves around a wealthy and debonair businessman with
serious control issues. His sexual tastes involve perverse fantasies, but he
gets what he wants because he’s rich, powerful, and handsome. In telling this
story, the movie doesn’t shy away from depictions of the sex act. The audience
is inundated with sex, in fact. The debauchery is enough to make a lot of
people sick, either with revulsion, pleasure, or a mixture of both.

Do you think I’m talking about Fifty Shades of Grey? Actually, I’m referring to The Wolf of Wall Street, which came out on
DVD just last year.
Many prominent Christian critics loved WoWS, as I pointed out earlier. Fifty Shades of Grey,
on the other hand, has been either ignored or condemned. And yet there are some
glaring similarities in how both movies handle sex.
They both employ stylistic techniques that were labeled as hardcore porn just a few decades
ago. These techniques involve …